Not since the collapse of the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks during President Bill Clinton’s last days in the White House has the Middle East seen such a frenetic pace of peace diplomacy as it is seeing today. But, aside from the Annapolis talks, which seem to be going nowhere, all the other peace tracks - with Lebanon, Syria, and possibly Iran - are more tactical than strategic.
JERUSALEM – Not since the collapse of the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks during President Bill Clinton’s last days in the White House has the Middle East seen such a frenetic pace of peace diplomacy as it is seeing today. A cease-fire has been brokered between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip, Israel and Syria have started peace negotiations, and Israel has offered Lebanon a chance to resolve the issues that block a bilateral settlement. Less dramatic perhaps, yet persistent nonetheless, are the peace talks between Israel and President Mahmoud Abbas’s Palestinian Authority.
So is the Middle East at the gates of a lasting, comprehensive peace? Not quite.
Aside from the Annapolis talks, which seem to be going nowhere because of the parties’ irreconcilable differences over the core issues, all the other peace efforts are more tactical than strategic. In none of them do the conditions yet exist for an immediate leap from war to peace, nor do the parties themselves expect that to happen.
To continue reading, register now.
Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.
For decades, US policymakers have preferred piecemeal tactical actions, while the Chinese government has consistently taken a more strategic approach. This mismatch is the reason why Huawei, to the shock of sanctions-focused American officials, was able to make a processor breakthrough in its flagship smartphone.
warns that short-termism will never be enough to offset the long-term benefits of strategic thinking.
With a democratic recession underway in many countries, one now commonly hears talk of democratic “backsliding” on a global scale. But not only is that term misleading; it also breeds fatalism, diverting our attention from potential paths out of the new authoritarianism.
thinks the language commonly used to describe the shift toward authoritarianism is hampering solutions.
Ashoka Mody
explains the roots of the lack of accountability in India, highlights shortcomings in human capital and gender equality, casts doubt on the country’s ability to assume a Chinese-style role in manufacturing, and more.
JERUSALEM – Not since the collapse of the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks during President Bill Clinton’s last days in the White House has the Middle East seen such a frenetic pace of peace diplomacy as it is seeing today. A cease-fire has been brokered between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip, Israel and Syria have started peace negotiations, and Israel has offered Lebanon a chance to resolve the issues that block a bilateral settlement. Less dramatic perhaps, yet persistent nonetheless, are the peace talks between Israel and President Mahmoud Abbas’s Palestinian Authority.
So is the Middle East at the gates of a lasting, comprehensive peace? Not quite.
Aside from the Annapolis talks, which seem to be going nowhere because of the parties’ irreconcilable differences over the core issues, all the other peace efforts are more tactical than strategic. In none of them do the conditions yet exist for an immediate leap from war to peace, nor do the parties themselves expect that to happen.
To continue reading, register now.
Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.
Subscribe
As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.
Register
Already have an account? Log in